Truth News Australia

Subscribe to TNRA
Subscribe to TNRA

Complete Withdrawal of Support by Richard Gage, AIA, for CIT’s “National Security Alert”

10 February 2011 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=1905

Richard Gage | 8 Feb 2011

I am hereby now on the record clearly as NOT supporting the CIT investigation at all.  In addition, I insist that CIT delete my name from its web site in any and every context in which it might give the impression of support or endorsement of their efforts from me.

In early 2009, I watched the “National Security Alert” video by the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) where recollections of 10 eyewitness accounts of the attack on the Pentagon were presented (of many more that were interviewed).  These accounts included the witnesses’ recollection of the path being taken by the plane prior to impact. The path that many of them recalled was to the north of the former CITGO gas station.  Based on these few accounts CIT presented its case that the plane flew over the Pentagon since the damage trail was not consistent with the north path.

My main focus relative to 9/11 had been on the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers.  I had not been able to spend much time on the Pentagon issue.  I was initially impressed by CIT’s presentation and, more than a year and a half ago, provided a short statement of support for their efforts.

After making my statement I became aware of more details of the CIT witness accounts as well as the rest of the compelling eyewitness testimony that is available. The vast majority of eyewitness accounts refute the CIT flyover conclusion, as they entail that the plane hit the Pentagon or was flying so low it could not miss.
I was also surprised to learn that 12 of the witnesses that CIT interviewed (including six witnesses to whom CIT refers to as north path witnesses) were in a position to see the Pentagon and all 12 stated that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon.  It was clear from this that CIT used improper investigative methods. CIT used and presented only those portions of their witness reports which fit their conclusion. The preponderance of  CIT’s own evidence in fact supports the conclusion that the plane impacted the Pentagon. (See Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert” and other works listed below for these and many additional witness statements that describe the plane as clearly impacting the Pentagon).

Because of these concerns I provided new statements in December 2009 and January 2010 pointing out that my previous statement of support should not be interpreted as an endorsement of their conclusion that the airplane flew over the Pentagon.  Despite these statements, CIT has continued to publish my original statement and characterize it as an endorsement of their flyover conclusion.  I am hereby now on the record clearly as NOT supporting the CIT investigation at all.  In addition, I insist that CIT delete my name from its web site in any and every context in which it might give the impression of support or endorsement of their efforts from me.

I base my present position also on a number of blogs, papers, blogs, and videos that have shed light on the Pentagon Flight 77 issues and on CIT’s work. These papers should be among those studied by anyone seeking the full truth about these matters.  Most of these works analyze additional evidence and come to different conclusions than CIT does.

Relevant critiques of CIT and their National Security Alert include:
Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert”, Chris Sarns, Feb 5, 2011
9/11 Pentagon Witnesses:  They Saw the Plane Hit the Pentagon, Video by Jeff Hill, June 14, 2010
Overwhelming Evidence of Insider Complicity, David Chandler and Jon Cole, Dec 2010
“Debating” What Hit the Pentagon by Exaggeration, Name-calling, and Threats, Gregg Roberts, Jan 2011

And critiques that examine CIT’s earlier work “Pentacon” are helpful as well:
Google Earth Exposes Pentagon Flyover Farce or Critiquing PentaCon ,  by Jim Hoffman, July 2009
To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon ‘Magic Show’, Victoria Ashley, July 2009

Relevant peer-reviewed papers (posted on Journalof911Studies.com):
Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon, Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, (B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.)  January 2011
What hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth, Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.), July 2009 (updated Feb 2010)

There was a time in the four years after 9/11 when I simply assumed that the official story of the destruction of the WTC Twin Towers on 9/11 was true.  One could say that I “endorsed” the official story based on what I knew at the time, but as I learned more, my opinion of what happened to those buildings evolved radically. John Maynard Keynes, father of Keynesian Economics, once said: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” A similar evolution has occurred in relation to my view of CIT’s work.

I strongly recommend that people who care to research what happened at the Pentagon take personal responsibility for forming their own conclusions by acquainting themselves with a wide range of analysis done by people who have come before them rather than jumping to conclusions based on a skewed selection of evidence and argument, or being unduly influenced by any type of authority figure.  Use your own discernment, based on your use of the scientific method to arrive at a coherent theory that you can confidently stand behind.

One of the authors cited above, Frank Legge, PhD., admonishes us to adopt a “prudent approach” to the Pentagon piece of the 9/11 puzzle.  In the end he wisely advocates the “precautionary principle” which is to “assert only what we can truly know,” given the contradictory evidence, misinformation, disinformation, and lack of information from official sources, and the difficulty in verifying much of it, years after the fact and with inadequate resources.

Legge concludes that there is prima facie evidence that “the official explanation of the event at the Pentagon is false and that a cover-up exists. He concludes as well this negative hypothesis: that there is “no proof that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon.”  And, since officials are holding the cards (videos) as to what did or didn’t hit the Pentagon, Dr. Legge’s recommendation is that investigators “take care to avoid publicly asserting that the 757 did not hit the Pentagon”.
We can all agree that no hijacked plane should have been able to violate the airspace of our nation’s capital and hit the headquarters of the most sophisticated defense system in the world – an hour and a half after the assault began on the Twin Towers.

The 9/11 Truth movement will be more likely to succeed in its effort to educate the public about the Pentagon by focusing on those areas of greatest agreement.

Comments

Enter comments below, then click Submit:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below:


Listen Live

Recent Comments

Cris,

the point that rational people make is that the stuff coming from the airplane exhaust stays indeed the same, but what’s changing is the situation around the plane. At one day there is dry air, at annother there is a lot of humidity. (See my explanation how the latter can happen when a front is approaching.)

If a contrail persists and grows, the additional mass comes from the humidity that is already present in the air - just like when natural clouds form, seemingly out of nothing.

By the way, that is a well-known plausibility argument against chemtrails - no plane is able to carry the mass equivalent of even a small persistant trail (search “ice budget”).

By Josh on 2014 10 31 - 23:46:16
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Andrew Adams,

I don’t claim to be an expert. However, I have read a lot about both chemtrail claims and their dissection from a scientic point of view, from sources that are accessible to everyone.

If something specific that I wrote is wrong, I certainly welcome a correction. Usually, I’m giving references from actual experts, so it’s only fair that any rebuttal should include specific references too. Also, I’d welcome if we could stay polite.

The science of persistent contrails is well established. They were observed since the early days of aviation (see also the top article), and the conditions that favour them were researched in the middle of the 20th century (Schmidt and Appleman, see for instance the introduction of this paper).

The Appleman Chart is a rule of thumb for contrail prediction. It is not very intuitive, but there is a visualization available which allows to adjust the parameters and see how the contrail properties are changing (needs Java).

Any claim that a specific persistent contrail cannot be explained with this knowledge needs to be based on very good evidence. If the evidence is reviewed and still stands, science has to be corrected. That’s the whole idea about scientific research - but the burden of proof lies with the person who makes the claim.

By Josh on 2014 10 31 - 22:38:08
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

It amazes me how rational people can think that the same stuff coming out the back of a plane can one day increase to enormous size and exhibit strange transformations(usually when rain is forecast) and other days is either non existent or merely dissipates from visibility within a minute.

By Cris on 2014 10 31 - 21:51:08
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

“i have been neither dictatorial, nor abusive” - yes, you have mate. Earlier you said “how about just taking a big gulp from the mug of STFU”. That is both dictatorial and abusive. We’ll now add “dishonest” to the list of your shortcomings. Have a nice day.

By Hereward Fenton on 2014 10 31 - 21:01:25
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Moderate Muslims:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=253_1412566275

By Eugene Donnini on 2014 10 31 - 20:28:52
From the entry 'A review of violence and intolerance in Islamic and other societies'.

fenton, i didnt say i didnt want to engage in rational debate, i said i wasnt interested in engaging with an obviously mendacious shill. i have been neither dictatorial, nor abusive, and as far as failure to prove anything goes, ignoring evidence does not mean evidence has not been provided, nor proof been established.

you have certainly not proven by any stretch of the imagination, that chemtrails are imaginary, and the concern of thousands of credible experts worldwide is without justification.

may i suggest if you can not prove what you are asserting, that you also take a hearty sip yourself. have a shitty day.

By Andrew Adams on 2014 10 31 - 15:33:15
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

The onus of proof is on those promoting geoengineering (David Keith, etc.Ken Caldera) to prove that what they say about the spraying, i.e. that it is a proposal, not a global reality, is true. That follows from the precautionary principle.

By W, Hall on 2014 10 31 - 15:10:14
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

As admin of this site I feel I need to step in here. Andrew, if you do not not want to engage in discussion and debate that’s fine, however you have absolutely no right to tell anybody to “STFU”.

I have provided a comment section to encourage free discussion and debate. Your dictatorial and abusive tone merely demonstrates your failure to prove anything.

Since you don’t want to engage in rational debate may I suggest that you refrain from posting here?

Have a nice day!

By Hereward Fenton on 2014 10 31 - 14:52:32
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

@ lumpen josh
what part of “I have no interest in hearing anything else you have to say, ” is too hard for you to understand?
I do not have to justify anything to you, i dont have to point you to anything, i dont have to engage you in any sort of conversation here because you have proven yourself to be of no credibility, a nonsensical bore.

nothing you can say can prove that chemtrails are a figment of the imagination of highly qualified credible people worldwide, so how about just taking a big gulp from the mug of STFU and stop pretending you are some sort of authoritive arbiter on anything.

By Andrew Adams on 2014 10 31 - 14:08:25
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

First off i applaud you for seeking facts rather that resorting to slander as i have all too commonly seen among alternate media. On that note i would like to make known some experiments the Australian government was carrying out! My grandfather was an aircraft maintenance technician many years ago. He obsessively tells me of an experiment they carried out where dry ice was shoveled into a modified chute into the clouds. He claimed they were at the aircraft altitude ceiling and the dry ice would cause the clouds to drop their water. He claimed they were wearing oxygen masks to breathe!

By Stephen on 2014 10 29 - 14:39:09
From the entry 'Chemtrails brownshirts renew threats against TNRA'.

Categories